Laserfiche WebLink
l <br /> � ;�5... . . � . � . . <br /> � � �� � � c�t� o� oR,oNO � <br /> � X�� � . <br /> (� } . , <br /> .,..`� ��yr ���� . . . . . <br /> • ' �° �"' ����? 'RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> .��: _-< . . <br /> .;,�,;, <br /> ,�,:�: .. � � � NO. 2155 � <br /> • . . . <br /> . � _ � �'� <br /> ���.;�. ��. <br /> , s <br /> B) Approval of the variance to allow hardcover in the 75- <br /> 250 ' setback zone in an amount of 28 � in order that <br /> applicant may construct the driveway and backup apron as <br /> proposed near the garage, finding that it would be <br /> functionally and aesthetically inappropriate to require that <br /> the backup apron be located in the 250-500' setback zone, <br /> over 7 0' f rom the garage area. <br /> C) Denial of the variance for encroachment into the average <br /> . setback zone, finding that no hardship exists and that this <br /> is new construction with the ability to meet all setback <br /> requirements. <br /> • 4. Applicants have revised their original proposal so that the <br /> 8' average lakeshore setback encroachment originally proposed now <br /> will not exceed a 4 ' encroachment. <br /> 5. The City Counci 1 f inds that the proposed encroachment into <br /> the average lakeshore setback will have less of a visual impact <br /> on the lakeshore views o�f the neighboring property to the east <br /> than if the house was located in the most northeasterly corner of <br /> the legal building envelope, hence a denial of the requested <br /> variance could potentially have a more detrimental effect on the <br /> neighboring property than approval of the variance. The intent <br /> of Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 will be better served by granting <br /> " the requested average lakeshore setback variance. <br /> 6. The City Council has considered this application including <br /> the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, <br /> reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect <br /> of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the <br /> community. <br /> 7. . The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this <br /> property are peculiar to it and do not apply general ly to other <br /> property in this zoning district; that granting the variance <br /> would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor <br /> pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would <br /> • not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is <br /> necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is <br /> necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the <br /> applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of <br /> the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. <br /> Page 2 of 6 <br />